State of Odisha Vs Abhimanyu Mishra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.A. No. 1133 OF 2022

(An appeal under Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Orders, 1948 read with Clause-10 of the Letter Patent of the Orissa High Court)

¶4

1. State of Odisha represented through its Secretary to Government now Additional Chief Secretary to Govt., Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Bhubaneswar

¶5

2. Director, Land Records, Surveys & Consolidation, Odisha, Board of Revenue, Cuttack …. Appellants -versus-

¶6

1. Abhimanyu Mishra …. Respondent

¶7

2. Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Bhubaneswar

¶8

3. Settlement Officer, DhenkanalKeonjhar Major Settlement, Dhenkanal

¶9

4. Accountant General (A&E), Proforma Bhubaneswar …. Respondents Advocate for the parties :

¶10

For Appellants : Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal Additional Standing Counsel

¶11

For Respondents : Mr. Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate (for Respondent No.1)

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

¶14

Heard and Disposed of on : 17.10.2025

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

By the Bench:-

¶17

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶18

Page 1 of 7

¶19

W.A. No. 1133 of 2022

¶20

It is submitted by Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel that cost of Rs.10,000/-, pursuant to order dated 24^th September, 2025 passed in I.A. No. 2798 of 2022 has been paid to the Respondent No.1.

¶21

Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 also submits that he has received the cost.

¶22

Hence, delay in filing the Writ Appeal is condoned. 4.1 The instant Intra-Court Appeal is taken up for admission and final disposal on consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

This Intra-Court Appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 3^rd January, 2022 passed by this Court in WPC (OAC) No. 1601 of 2007 under Annexure-2.

¶24

Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the Respondent No.1 namely Abhimanyu Mishra filed O.A. No. 1601 (C) of 2007 before State Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack with a prayer to direct the State - Opposite Parties therein to count his past service rendered in job contract establishment for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefit within a stipulated period.

¶25

After abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal, the O.A. was transferred to this Court and was registered as WPC(OAC) No. 1601 of 2007. The matter was taken up on 3^rd January, 2022 and this Court while adjudicating the matter took note of the case of Nityanand Biswal Vs. State of Odisha and Others in O.A. No. 3020(C) of 2003 disposed of on 4^th January, 2004. The said judgment passed by the State Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack was challenged by the State-Appellant before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14244 of 2006. The writ petition was

¶26

Page 2 of 7

¶27

W.A. No.1133 of 2022

¶28

dismissed vide order dated 9^th April, 2014. Being not satisfied, the State, moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) CC No. 12573 of 2015 which was also dismissed vide order dated 13^th July, 2015. Thus, relying upon Nityanand Biswal (supra) , this Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 3^rd January, 2022 with the following direction:-

¶29

“ 6. In view of the above settled position of law, nothing remains to be reconsidered by this Court. Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to extend all such benefits in favour of the petitioner in terms of the directions given by the Courts as mentioned above, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of the certified copy of the order.

¶30

7. With the above observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of…. ”

¶31

7.1. Assailing the said order this Intra-Court Appeal has been filed.

¶32

Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel in course of argument, relied upon the judgment dated 15^th July, 2025 rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 17 of 2023 ( State of Odisha & Others Vs. Krushna Chandra Mallick & Another ) and a batch of Writ Appeals. The Co-ordinate Bench, taking note of the rival pleadings of the parties and case law relied upon, held as under:-

¶33

“5.8. Learned Advocate General is right in telling us that Rules of the kind which provide for pensionary benefits to the employees are evolved as a matter of State Policy taking into inter alia account the purse size of the Government and

¶34

Page 3 of 7

¶35

W.A. No.1133 of 2022

¶36

other collateral factors. A lot of working experience and the lessons drawn from it enter the fray of making. It hardly needs to be reiterated that judiciary being a coordinate branch of the State has to respect the policy decisions of other organs, especially in the absence of challenge thereto, consistent with the doctrine of separation of powers which is held to be a Basic Feature of the Constitution vide Indira Neheru Gandhi v. Raj Narain . The contention of employees that in terms of earlier orders, a section of them has already been given the benefit of counting full service and therefore not extending the said facility to these would be discriminatory, does not merit acceptance. Even in concluded matters, Apex Court in Sudhansu Sekhar Jena supra has specifically reserved liberty to the State to prefer review petitions in the matters that have been already concluded in SLP/Civil Appeals. This observation will find at Paragraph-21 of the judgment. We are told by the learned AG that such review petitions are already in the making, specific time for filing them having been fixed, by the Apex Court itself.

¶37

We are not unmindful of cases wherein the employees might have been granted regularization long after they were due for it. There may be cases wherein with the judicial intervention the dates of regularization of service are altered to the advantage of employees. What would happen to such cases, has not been discussed by us, since that is not the pleaded case before us in these appeals.

¶38

In the above circumstances, these appeals having common law and facts are allowed; the impugned orders of the learned Single Judges are

¶39

Page 4 of 7

¶40

W.A. No.1133 of 2022

¶41

set at naught; the writ petitions filed by the respondent-employees are dismissed.

¶42

Costs made easy.”

¶43

8.1. Accordingly, all the Writ Appeals were allowed and the writ petitions filed by the Respondents-employees in the batch of Writ appeals were dismissed.

¶44

It is submitted by Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel that since the Respondent No.1 herein stands in a similar footing with the Respondents in the batch of Writ Appeals (supra), the writ appeal should be allowed by setting aside the order dated 3^rd January, 2022 passed in WPC (OAC) No. 1601 of 2007. 10. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1, though admitted the factual submission made by Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel, but submitted that in the case of State of Odisha & Others Vs. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena in SLP(C) No. 2146 of 2024 and a batch of SLP(C)s. preferred against the order of this Court in the writ appeals confirming the order of learned Single Bench in similar such cases, held as under:-

¶45

“19. Presently, in the cases before us, and for reasons which have already given above, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, these appeals are hereby allowed.

¶46

20. Having made the above determination, we also feel that it is our duty to bring on record the extreme carelessness and lethargic manner in which the State has been pursuing these cases, both in the High Court and before this Court. The delay caused by them is inexcusable. Nevertheless, we have heard these matters for reasons we have already stated in the preceding paragraphs in the earlier part of this judgment. All such cases, which

¶47

Page 5 of 7

¶48

W.A. No.1133 of 2022

¶49

were belatedly filed, both before the High Court in Appeal and then before this Court as Special Leave Petitions, are hereby set apart from the rest, only for the purpose of payment of costs. Consequently, in all such cases the State shall pay an amount of Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand, to the employee concerned. This amount shall be deposited in the account of the employees, or as the case might be, within a period of four weeks from today. This order shall not be made effective till the above amount is deposited in the account of each of such employees.

¶50

21. Due to the delay in filing of Special Leave Petitions some petitions were dismissed earlier as we have stated in the preceding paragraphs. Now, in terms of our order here, the State may file its review, within four weeks from today.

¶51

22. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.

¶52

23. All pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.”

¶53

Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that while allowing the Special Leave to Appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the State-Appellants therein to pay Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh Fifty thousand only) to each of the employees concerned. He therefore submits that the writ appeal may be allowed subject to payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh Fifty thousand only) to the Respondent No.1.

¶54

Considering the rival contentions of the parties, we feel that further scrutiny of the matter on merit is not necessary as the issue involved has already been set at rest by the Co-ordinate Bench in Krushna Chandra Mallick & Another (supra) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudhansu Sekhar Jena (supra).

¶55

Page 6 of 7

¶56

W.A. No.1133 of 2022

¶57

However, it requires consideration as to whether the Respondent No.1 is entitled to a cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh Fifty thousand only) or not.

¶58

On perusal of Sudhansu Sekhar Jena (supra), it is manifest that cost has been imposed for delay on the part of the State in preferring the appeals. The cases which were belatedly filed before the High Court and then before the Supreme Court were considered for payment of cost.

¶59

In the instant case, there was a delay of 203 days in filing the Writ Appeal. Vide order dated 24^th September, 2025, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only).

¶60

Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 accepted the same without any objection. Hence, we feel that no further cost for filing the writ appeal with delay is required to be imposed on the State.

¶61

Accordingly, the order dated 3^rd January, 2022 passed by this Court in WPC(OAC) No. 1601 of 2007 under Annexure-2 is set aside and the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent No.1 stands dismissed.

¶62

The Writ Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶63

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶64

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 19-Oct-2025 13:26:13

¶65

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶66

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 17^th Day of October, 2025//Sukanta

¶67

Page 7 of 7

¶68

W.A. No.1133 of 2022

State of Odisha v. Abhimanyu Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Odisha v. Abhimanyu Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anusuya Devi Agarwal Vs Collector, Cuttack

Sukadeb Swain Vs State of Odisha

Bandana Samal Vs State of Odisha

Sukanti Naik Vs Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Southern Division Berhampur, Ganjam

Gajendra Kumar Singh Vs the General Manager, Hingula Area, Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited (Mcl), Angul

Santosh Kapoor Vs Revenue Divisional Commissioner, (Central Divisuion), Odisha, Cuttack